Alright so im 16 and you may be thinking what could she posibly say that counts....but i have a right to my opinion so here i go.

Thomas Jefferson said there should be a seperation of church and state in a letter he wrote to Nathaniel Dodge Jan. 1st 1802. The religious institution has been proected from civil laws and goverment organized points of view. Our constitution GUARUNTEES EVERYONE equal rights and equal protections-that is what gays and lesbians have been asking for-nothing more and nothing less.

So the definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman. SO BE IT!!! Id just like to point out that one word can have numerous definitions so why should marriage just be defined as that?

I believe in God and his writings but we all say that he made us a certain way for a reason right? So if he made a variety of colors of skin wheather you believe this or you believe the evolution of man from apes all im saying is, There was/is segregation, there were laws that were around to seperate blacks from whites. Then the people started to realize that this went against the 14th ammendement and it was unfair...so because of this there was less segregation. Then the Civil Rights Act of July 2nd 1964 comes about and it made it ILLEGAL for employees to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. This act assured equal rights for ALL Americans. (Im not getting off subject keep reading)

Then comes along the Gay Rights Movement of 1969 which was brought on by people wanting the equality the constitution says we are to get, the freedom of personal choices and personal privacies. The debate on same-sex marriage has been going on for almost 40 years, however the battle for Homosexual rights has been ongoing for the better part of the last century.

So if we have eliminated segregation, discrimination, all words i have strong hate for...then why should we bring back inequality?????

Now for some ridiculous stuff...

They say gay marriage threatens the stable family. According to studies children raised without one gender of a parent around are more likely to drop out of school, use substances, and commit crimes. So putting a child in this position could lead to the breakdown of society. (That persons not naive at all)

If this were the case there would still be segregation because according to the South(When slavery was still around) African Americans should not of been set free because they felt they wouldn't know what to do with the power of freedom and it would lead to chaos, segregation is wrong in ALL terms, so i ask again why should we be told to think different after so long and bring inequality back into play?

Have these people that conduct these studies realized that these people they choose for these tests could be victims of abuse or bullying in school? It could be the result of the way one is treated by its peers that causes the person to act the way he/she does. For example, singling someone out that has gay parents and using it against them to say mean things, causing this student to start depression, or an eating disorder or whatever else they say that gay parents cause.

STOP BEING SO NAIVE

They also say that the insinuation that sexual orientation makes a person less fit to love and nurture a child is all the more ridiculous when one considers the millions of terrible parents who, by accident, happen to be straight.

And addoption...

so the ability for same sex couples to adopt is up for debate.

YOU ARE THE ONES COMPLAINING ABOUT THE KIDS THAT DONT HAVE HOMES!!!

What makes an unfit parent is them not willing to listen, give there kid a chance, abuse, neglect, the list is never ending. I can reassure you over and over and OVER again that this is NOT just present in units where the parents are of the same sex.

The right to marry who you want is not just about the actual legal ceremony, but an equal right to the extensive list of legal protections awarded to married couples. These benefits given to legally married couples range from tax relief to medical decision making. Civil unions and domestic partnerships may seem like equal unions, but the protections they give to registered couples is often FAR LESS than that of marriage.

Number of legal benefits:
marriage- over 1049 federal and stae level benefits
civil union- over 300 state level benefits NO FEDERAL PROTECTION

Tax Relief
marriage- couples can file both federal and state tax returns jointly
civil union- couples can only file jointly in the state of civil registration

Medical Decisions
marriage- couples can make emergency medical decisions
civil union- couples can only make medical decisions in the registered state. Partners may not be able to make decisions out of state.

Death Benefits
marriage- In the case of a partners death, the spouse receives any earned socail security or veteran benefits
civil union- partners do not receive social security or any other government benefits in case of death

Immigration Rights
marriage- U.S. citizens and legal residents can sponsor their spouses and family members for immigration
civil union- U.S. citizens and legal residents cannor sponsor non legal spouses or family members

Im researching all of this for an opposing viewpoints paper for my english class. I used tons of sources and can list them if people wish...but for now im just gunna leave em out.

Marriage should only be a religious ceremony between whomever the Church will agree to perform the ceremony for.

There is no provision in the US Constitution for Congress to Legislate anything to do with Marriage.

The States may do as they please.

I am not anti-gay. Worse, I am indifferent to gays. I could really care less about so called civil rights for what is a lifestyle choice. The difference between gays and other "minorities" is that an ethnic jew or asian is visible to all and they really have no choice in the matter. Gays on the other hand take what should be private (their sex lives) and force it on the public.

Once upon a time what went in the bedroom stayed there and was no ones business. Essentially, I don't care about your sex life or whatever floats your boat. So when militant gays get all juiced about not getting their rights I just shake my head and move on. But, if you want to put your private sexual life on the public stage you have to expect that you will be judged by your fellow members of society.

Marriage should only be a religious ceremony between whomever the Church will agree to perform the ceremony for.

There is no provision in the US Constitution for Congress to Legislate anything to do with Marriage.

The States may do as they please.

I am not anti-gay. Worse, I am indifferent to gays. I could really care less about so called civil rights for what is a lifestyle choice. The difference between gays and other "minorities" is that an ethnic jew or asian is visible to all and they really have no choice in the matter. Gays on the other hand take what should be private (their sex lives) and force it on the public.

Once upon a time what went in the bedroom stayed there and was no ones business. Essentially, I don't care about your sex life or whatever floats your boat. So when militant gays get all juiced about not getting their rights I just shake my head and move on. But, if you want to put your private sexual life on the public stage you have to expect that you will be judged by your fellow members of society.

Click to expand...

Well ... the lifestyle part is the only part gay men and women brought out of the closet, but as for the sexual stuff most often heterosexuals who are anti-gay are the ones bringing that out.

My point was that when someone declares publicly that he/she is gay or whatever they are disclosing private information that I really don't want to know about.

Click to expand...

That isn't bringing out bedroom stuff, that's just a style and fashion. If you are thinking about the sex when someone dresses or acts a certain way then there is a pervert in you. Do you think about sex with a man when you see someone in a kilt? How about a woman in pants?

wo wo i am not gay...haha im straight as a pin!!! just to point that out...and i agree with you....i could careless if they are married but they shud keep what happens in the bedroom....IN THE BEDROOM

Click to expand...

Let gays and lesbians marry. It's an issue of civil rights. Marriage has been written into law because it involves property rights. We are long past the stage where children and wives are property. Marriage law is outdated and needs an upgrade.

Let gays and lesbians marry. It's an issue of civil rights. Marriage has been written into law because it involves property rights. We are long past the stage where children and wives are property. Marriage law is outdated and needs an upgrade.

Wrong. You'll find a lot of people get pissed at this view, but I have always believed and will always believe that the term marriage is religious in nature, or at least has become religious in nature over centuries.

Now it is proposed that gays should be able to marry. Well, if they can find a church that will do it for them fair enough. Otherwise, why try and force what has become established as a religious term for the union of a heterosexual couple to now be a catch all so that gays can benefit from some of the decision making and legal rights you listed earlier.

If a change in the law were required, I'd be much happier to see a law requiring that Civil Unions be treated no differently to marriages, with all the legal rights that go with such a decision.

Marriage for hetero, Civil Union for homo. Unless viewing it from the position of a gay rights activist, what's wrong with that compromise?

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!